• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

Random Thoughts...[F1 edition]

it's an abstract drawing of t the view most drivers had chasing down Jacky Stewart in his tyrell?

(please don't let anyone correct me in saying this is actually a matra??)
 
Last edited:
it's an abstract drawing of t the view most drivers had chasing down Jacky Stewart in his tyrell?

(please don't let anyone correct me in saying this is actually a matra??)

No, it's definitely a Tyrrell. Whether it's 003, 005 or 006 is anyone's guess, but it is a Tyrrell.
 
I'm reluctant to post this article as it will probably draw out every Ferrari hater on this forum, but I guess my conscience is getting the best of me today...

http://en.espnf1.com/ferrari/motorsport/story/104589.html

The truth about Ferrari's power in Formula One said:
By Christian Sylt and Caroline Reid

April 1, 2013

The rumours about Ferrari having a veto over changes to Formula One's regulations and receiving more prize money than other teams are almost urban myths. No direct evidence has ever been presented to prove them. Until now.


The prospectus for the flotation of Formula One on the Singapore stock exchange reveals that Ferrari has the right to veto regulation changes ? Sutton Images

A few weeks ago Italian newspaper Corriere dello Sport shed new light on one of the longest-running rumours in the history of Formula One. It claimed that Ferrari has a veto over any change to F1's regulations and it added that Max Mosley, former president of motor sport's governing body the F?d?ration Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), awarded the privilege to the team in 2005 to prevent it leaving. It certainly wasn't the first time that this kind of rumour has been reported but it may well be the last because evidence has come to light which at last proves that Ferrari does indeed have a veto.

F1's new season got underway last month in Australia despite the expiry at the end of 2012 of the Concorde Agreement, the contract which commits the teams to race. This was signed by the teams, the FIA and F1's rightsholder the F1 Group, which is controlled by private equity firm CVC and run by Bernie Ecclestone. The teams lined up on the grid in Australia and the race went ahead as usual largely due to the existence of several crucial contracts.

In 2001 the F1 Group paid $313.6m for the rights to host the 'FIA Formula One World Championship' for 100 years from 2011. The contract which grants the rights is not as well-known as the Concorde but is still important and is called the Umbrella Agreement. It grants the F1 Group the rights to F1 which in turn enables Ecclestone to do deals with circuits and television stations to allow the races to go ahead and be seen.

The FIA draws up the Technical Regulations which the teams must abide by and it also grants them entries to the championship. Without the Concorde, Ecclestone has no guarantee that the teams will attend every race. The Concorde also ratifies the technical regulations that the teams will race under and confirms the commercial terms of their involvement with F1 such as the amount of prize money they will receive. So why did the first two races take place as normal despite the Concorde being unsigned?

The answer is that although the teams have not signed a joint contract with the F1 Group, ten of them have committed separately by signing up to what are known as 'Team Agreements', with all the teams signed up except for Marussia. Each contract runs from the start of this year until the end of 2020 and some confer different benefits to the signatories. Ferrari's is by far the most lucrative.

The extent of Ferrari's power in F1 is buried deep in the 498-page prospectus for the flotation of F1 on the Singapore stock exchange which CVC has said it hopes will take place later this year. On page 179, in the section about the Team Agreements it states that "in respect of Ferrari only, Ferrari may terminate if the regulatory safeguards agreed between the FIA and Ferrari do not allow Ferrari to veto any change to the regulations already announced or introduced (subject to certain exceptions)."

It proves the rumours to be true but there is more. The prospectus, and reports by financial analysts, also reveal that Ferrari gets more prize money than any other team. The main prize fund is distributed to the top ten teams depending on their position in the standings and it is comprised of 47.5% of the F1 Group's underlying profit which is known as Earnings Before Interest, Taxes Depreciation and Amortisation (EBITDA). The F1 Group's latest financial statements are for 2011 and they show that the main prize fund came to $557.1m.

Page 176 of the prospectus confirms that under the Team Agreements two additional percentages will be shared out. However, crucially, only certain teams benefit from them. The first is "the greater of 7.5% of our Prize Fund EBITDA, and US$100 million (the 'CCB Fund')." The prospectus adds that "The CCB Fund shall be shared amongst the CCB Teams meaning each of the top three Teams determined primarily on Events won in the four seasons prior to 2012."

These teams are Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull Racing and the prospectus states how much they will each receive from this fund. It confirms that this sees "the Team ranked first receiving 37% of the CCB Fund (with a minimum payment of US$37 million), the second Team receiving 33% of the CCB Fund (minimum US$33 million) and the third Team receiving 30% of the CCB Fund (minimum US$30 million)."

Until the end of last year Ferrari got an additional 2.5% of F1's profits to itself but according to page 176 of the prospectus, and the analysts' reports, this now comes to "the greater of an amount which is capped at 5% of our Prize Fund EBITDA and US$62.2 million."

In 2011, the F1 Group's underlying profits came to $1.17bn on revenue of $1.5bn. This gave Ferrari $29.3m from its 2.5% profit share alone. This year that will treble to at least $92.2m and in addition Ferrari gets a cut in the prize fund comprised of 47.5% of F1's profits.


Luca di Montezemolo was appointed a non-executive director of the F1 Group's ultimate parent company Delta Topco in March 2012 ? Getty Images
Enlarge
It gets preferential treatment because it is the only team which has competed every year since F1 began in 1950 and has won more titles than any of its rivals. Ferrari is also the only car manufacturer involved with F1 which directly signs contracts with the F1 Group rather than using a subsidiary company to do so. This gives recourse directly to Ferrari itself if the contract is breached whereas a subsidiary company could easily be shut down.

So important is Ferrari's status as the longest standing team that it even has control over the race weekend. Page 177 of the prospectus reveals that the F1 Group has "agreed to give to the Longest Standing Team, if it is a manufacturer of GT racing cars, a right of first refusal to run an international motor sport series for its cars as a support event (i.e. to be included in the track programme of an Event as a support event to the World Championship) on terms and conditions no less favourable to the Longest Standing Team than those granted to other entities."

Ferrari's chairman Luca di Montezemolo also benefits directly from having steered the manufacturer to success in F1. He has been granted an option on a 0.25% stake in F1 if it floats and in March last year he was appointed a non-executive director of the F1 Group's ultimate parent company Delta Topco.

Di Montezemolo now has a say in shaping F1's future as he sits on its remuneration and nomination committees. The former approves the policy for determining how much directors get paid and the latter recommends which directors should be re-appointed. Ecclestone's contract has no fixed term so it falls outside the remit of the nomination committee which goes to show that there are limits to Ferrari's influence after all.

Ferrari's veto over the regulations is at the top of the list of its benefits and it is here to stay until the end of 2020 at least. The Team Agreements should eventually be replaced by a new Concorde Agreement which the FIA has repeatedly said will soon be signed. The prospectus confirms that the same terms will carry over from the Team Agreements and "once the New Concorde Agreement has been entered into, the individual Team Agreements will fall away."

Although there is no doubt about whether Ferrari has a veto, the next matter of great speculation is sure to be whether it has used it.
 
Doesn't surprise me a bit, even if we didn't know the extent of it in certain terms everyone knows that Ferrari receives preferential treatment and has been for at least the past 20 years.
 
To be honest, I don't really care either way. The article reads as a slander piece and while it may be true, it doesn't seem to inhibit competition, especially today.
 
To be honest, I don't really care either way. The article reads as a slander piece and while it may be true, it doesn't seem to inhibit competition, especially today.

That's my impression. Ferrari has benefits but it doesn't seem to affect the competition. The "Longest Standing Team" issue is of importance as well. Ferrari fan or not, Ferrari is, in someways, F1. F1 management has a high interest in keeping Ferrari around.
 
Yeah, there is something to be said of Ferrari for sticking with the sport through the years. I almost think it's fair that they get some level of preferential treatment. Obviously I don't want the rules to be written in their favor or for their drivers to get any kind of extra advantage but that doesn't seem to be happening. Since they've supported F1 for so long they should be consulted whenever there are major rule, schedule and contract changes that impact the sport significantly.

I'm not sure if I like the idea that they could potentially veto changes that don't benefit them, though. We know Ferrari in the road-car world has been less than fair, with their "special" road test cars and such. That makes me a little weary to trust them with any "additional" power that they might have in F1, deserved or not.
 
A related statistic: ignoring the Indianapolis 500 in the 1950s, Ferrari cars have raced in all but 14 of the World Championship GPs since 1950. (Entered by Scuderia Ferrari I mean)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, there is something to be said of Ferrari for sticking with the sport through the years. I almost think it's fair that they get some level of preferential treatment. Obviously I don't want the rules to be written in their favor or for their drivers to get any kind of extra advantage but that doesn't seem to be happening. Since they've supported F1 for so long they should be consulted whenever there are major rule, schedule and contract changes that impact the sport significantly.

Since 2005, the only little break that Ferrari got was a ban on the blown diffusor in 2011 I think, Silverstone. When the rules were clamped down. Apart from that, I personally don't recall any of this bias that is being hinted at in the article, with the veto and all that. It's been 8 years actually, since they started shagging Ferrari in the ass (no tyre change in 2005, completely new rules in 2009, new tyres in 2011.) Practically any change in F1 since a long time ago has been a pain in the ass for Ferrari...
 
Since 2005, the only little break that Ferrari got was a ban on the blown diffusor in 2011 I think, Silverstone. When the rules were clamped down. Apart from that, I personally don't recall any of this bias that is being hinted at in the article, with the veto and all that. It's been 8 years actually, since they started shagging Ferrari in the ass (no tyre change in 2005, completely new rules in 2009, new tyres in 2011.) Practically any change in F1 since a long time ago has been a pain in the ass for Ferrari...

Not quite true. The only time that Ferrari was deliberately bent over the next piece of furniture and given a darn good anal seeing-to was after 2004 to stop Schumacher from winning. The 2009 rule changes were made to reduce cornering speeds and improve overtaking by reducing wake turbulence behind the cars. Had nothing to do whatsoever with Ferrari. The new tires in 2011 were an idea by Bernie to take a big warm crap all over everyone and create artificial 'drama'.
The truth is that since the retirement of Rory Byrne and the arrival of Newey at RB they simply cannot keep up in the aerodynamics department anymore. That's why LdM is crying a river about aerodynamics being too important these days, while they were very happy with exactly the same situation, when Rory Byrne built the aerodynamically best cars between 2000 and 2004.

That Ferrari by default get massively more money than other teams (regardless of their finishing position) from now on is hard to stomach but understandable. Unless so many others, they've been around since the Romans left. But the veto for rule changes is totally unacceptable. Why should one team be allowed to select which rule changes they like, while the other 10 have to take what is presented to them. That is a deliberate violation of equal chances, especially if the favoured party is one of the strongest in the game to begin with. I find that not acceptable the least bit.
 
Last edited:
The truth is that since the retirement of Rory Byrne and the arrival of Newey at RB they simply cannot keep up in the aerodynamics department anymore. That's why LdM is crying a river about aerodynamics being too important these days, while they were very happy with exactly the same situation, when Rory Byrne built the aerodynamically best cars between 2000 and 2004.

Aerodynamics is too important, especially when the engines aren't allowed to run wild anymore.

But the veto for rule changes is totally unacceptable. Why should one team be allowed to select which rule changes they like, while the other 10 have to take what is presented to them. That is a deliberate violation of equal chances, especially if the favoured party is one of the strongest in the game to begin with. I find that not acceptable the least bit.

Veto power doesn't let Ferrari choose what rules they like, it lets them choose what rules they don't like. I doubt they've used it in a way to radically change F1, I mean we still have KERS, smaller engines, and small rear wings, all things that Ferrari have once expressed displeasure about.
 
also, if ferrari uses it's veto, the rule won't be imposed to other teams either

someone having a veto against the FIA isn't necessarily a bad thing...
 
I have no qualms with Ferrari having that veto, it gives the teams, collectively, a bargaining chip with the FIA.

We have no idea what happens behind the closed doors of the technical meetings, the FIA may present ideas that the teams thought would be bogus that Ferrari suggested it would veto.
 
Bottom line: If Ferrari had such power that is hinted at in this slander article...they'd have almost everything tailored to them. Because who wouldn't use that power if they had it? :)
 
I have no qualms with Ferrari having that veto, it gives the teams, collectively, a bargaining chip with the FIA.

We have no idea what happens behind the closed doors of the technical meetings, the FIA may present ideas that the teams thought would be bogus that Ferrari suggested it would veto.

I agree that a veto against the FIA dictatorship is not neccessarily a bad thing, but why only Ferrari? There are long-time players like McLaren or Williams, who have no such say. Putting so much influence on a single competitor while the majority of the opponents have no such measure at their disposal is not exactly fair.

- - - Updated - - -

Bottom line: If Ferrari had such power that is hinted at in this slander article...they'd have almost everything tailored to them. Because who wouldn't use that power if they had it? :)

Funny how, whenever someone criticizes something about Ferrari, it is slander. I don't see much slander in that article. I see someone raising a few valid questions.
 
Funny how, whenever someone criticizes something about Ferrari, it is slander. I don't see much slander in that article. I see someone raising a few valid questions.

It's the quintessential ESPN style of slander, it's subtle at first but when you watch enough sportcenter and enough of the bullshit they spew on their network in general, it becomes clear.
 
Top